´óÏó´«Ã½

Every morning I wake up to an inbox stuffed with news releases, official statements and the usual load of 'unmissable' bargains offering to make me a million or two.

Most of it never makes it past the delete button. The convenience of the internet means I'm reached just as easily by government departments, official spokespeople, snake-oil salesmen, conspiracy theorists and outright loonies. Being based in the United States means that I probably get more than most from all of the above.

The American sultans of spin would give Alastair Campbell a run for his money, so I read any official release with a sceptical eye, trying to root out the inconvenient fact or the concealed truth buried in the eighth paragraph. News releases give a convenient heads-up, but it's lazy journalism to swallow their contents hook, line and sinker just because it comes from a 'respectable' source.

Similarly, there are many bloggers and commentators out there who go to great lengths to convince the world that Elvis is alive, George Bush was born in Nicaragua or aliens are alive in the Nevada desert. It would be rash to believe any of these theories, but what about claims of government-sponsored massacre in a distant part of the world? Or a junior clerk blowing the whistle on a multinational? Or abuse of women in an ethnic community in New York? Possibly such stories come from a disgruntled employee, or a government malcontent. But again, possibly not...

The argument rages over what we as editors should take seriously in the 'stuff' out there in the blogosphere, and what we should discount. To me, the answer seems rooted in our basic training as journalists. A sceptical eye is necessary, together with oodles of commonsense, and of course a load of fact-checking using trusted sources.

Just because it's a government department doesn't mean that it's necessarily the whole truth. And just because it's an anonymous source with a jaw-dropping claim doesn't mean that it's not.